A question for people who believe in Moral Absolutes

@Frank Apisa,

Is not that hard to do Frank...you just have to give a shot at trying to understand what propel us towards action...where is the legitimacy to take action and how can we measure that...I just gave you 2 general principles for it.

For that very same reason people don't usually try to fly like birds when they have legs to walk or run...one shouldn't try to dominate what one can't dominate.

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

In nature you either dominate or you cooperate and you must have rational motives to either do one or the other...both, I think, can be morally justified.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

I can hear already some minds around thinking the worst of me but let me say in my defense that the good, wisest, and most pragmatical form of domination spends exactly the minimum amount of energy possible to exercise dominion...and war is a word that can be taken in many many senses. Normally the immorality in most wars is the disproportional use of force...

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Sorry, Fil...I do not understand what you are getting at.

Let's chalk it up to my not being smart enough to get it...and move on.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
If life is fundamental then the extinction of life must be fundamentally wrong

This is true.

However whether life is fundamental or not is a subjective value, not a moral absolute. There is no objectively testable fact to support the assertion that life is fundamental.

Do you think it is a coincidence that everyone who believes that life is fundamental is alive?

The principle that life should not be taken by another and this should never be violated if the scenario was that: only two sentient beings exist and they could repopulate the universe if one did not kill the other, is a definition of a ‘moral absolute’ in this simple scenario. The reason is that life is fundamental and to extinguish life would be remove the fundamental reason for the universe. Without life the universe is meaningless as there is no life to give it meaning; If this is true then it remains ‘objectively’ true for however many sentient beings there are. Therefore it is ‘always’ a moral absolute, regardless of ‘subjective’ religions, philosophies or sciences.

Can you or someone convince me otherwise or show my reasoning is ‘subjective’ without just saying: ‘it’s subjective’ and not putting forward a clear argument that shows that to be the case.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

Igm says that he believes "... that humans are more important than any other animal." He acknowledges that this is his subjective opinion." I share that perspective, and would go further to say that this applies to ALL of my values. And I justify this perspective by agreeing that it reflects my particular nature--"who I am as a person"--and the culture in which I have been formed.

JL, I don't believe I said this I believe Max did. I believe that humans are best suited to examine their views of the world and their views of reality and change if they believe they should. Other life is equal in many other respects but cannot so easily reflect on their view of the world and reality and are handicapped in this respect.

0 Replies

@igm,

Quote:

The principle that life should not be taken by another and this should never be violated if the scenario was that: only two sentient beings exist and they could repopulate the universe if one did not kill the other, is a definition of a ‘moral absolute’ in this simple scenario. The reason is that life is fundamental and to extinguish life would be remove the fundamental reason for the universe. Without life the universe is meaningless as there is no life to give it meaning; If this is true then it remains ‘objectively’ true for however many sentient beings there are. Therefore it is ‘always’ a moral absolute, regardless of ‘subjective’ religions, philosophies or sciences.

Can you or someone convince me otherwise or show my reasoning is ‘subjective’ without just saying: ‘it’s subjective’ and not putting forward a clear argument that shows that to be the case.

Quote:

Without life the universe is meaningless as there is no life to give it meaning;

...

...is a subjective consideration.

Without it...your entire thesis fails.

So the entire thesis is dependent upon a subjective consideration.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Quote:

Quote:

European immigrants to the Americas acted within the standards of their cultures.

That's false, Matt, but you've shown yourself to be one that doesn't much like facts. The European immigrants lied and cheated, repeatedly, broke treaty after treaty and then when that was met with protest slaughtered Native Americans.

JTT are you suggesting that European immigrants to the Americas acted different to how they might have acted if they were settling on a different foreign land? Was this not the conquering behavior that they displayed throughout history?

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Sorry, Fil...I do not understand what you are getting at.

Let's chalk it up to my not being smart enough to get it...and move on.

Its quite simple Frank...

Morality is a system in place by which you can judge and measure the productivity of an action that interferes with the natural process of other agents, a social problem...in it you weight the cost versus the gain, your legitimacy is inferred quite obviously when the gain is bigger then the cost.
Extreme relativism is a direct impediment to any sort of judgement or comparison, is quitting before the game even starts...relativists bottom line leave to nature what they think its to hard or to burdening to evaluate for themselves... as I see it, reflects a negligent laisser faire laissez passé kind of attitude...relativism always ends in an stagnant swamp where everything is allowed and nothing is understood or justified...to that I say rather be wrong and going somewhere then staying put ! Evolution itself seams to agree...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil...

...here is the post to which you are replying...in its entirety. (It was a reply to something Max said.)

Quote:

Quote:

@maxdancona,

Quote:
Do you think it is coincidence your personal moral code, which happens to mostly match with the culture you were raised in, is the one true moral code?

Very well asked, Max.

Reminds me that most people who finally are able to make direct contact with their god...find that the god expects of them exactly what they expected the god to expect of them...that the god is offended by exactly the things they expected to offend it...and is pleased by exactly the things they expected it to like.

If you are questioning something I said here,please tell me what it is; why you are questioning it...and I will respond.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

So what ? Wasn't that a joking take on moral absolutes in favor of moral relativism ? I suppose if you favor a belief on moral relativism you ought to answer to my comments...otherwise the self realized prophecy to which you amusingly referred to not being an argument per se amounts to noise...I think I clarified any system of beliefs is entitled to "defend" itself as long it can't recognize understand or incorporate any other more satisfactory or more complex system, none of it signify s moral relativism can't conform to a moral absolute norm...it just means that such process is not pacific.

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Furthermore if one is willingly admitting several degrees of complexity in the structuring of a set of systems including moral systems, the usage of an Absolute or "Universality" as adequate terming, even considering an open infinite set, would just require the biggest possible set at a given time frame, which must exist if any order of grandeur exists, you don't even have to describe it, or particularize its characteristics...
Moral relative models are not only susceptible to more advanced moral relative models, but they must eventually be justified to the most advanced possible model at a given time, that model being correctly and pragmatically described as a working absolute model.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil,

With regard to the specific qualities of a closed, non-entopic system devised to portray (for hypothetical purposes) the possible universal aspects of morals such that behavior or ethic can be classified as “absolute” in an epistemological contex requires (perhaps “derives from” might be a better way to put that), that context of the hypothetical relative to the possible variations that can occur match the parameters (which of course have to be set prior to the presuppositions that form the basis for what amounts to a mental experiment)...be valid and verified as valid.

You are not doing that here.

Essentially you are begging the question.

Please…do the background work; ask your question (or make your statement)…and then we can proceed.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

See above...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5274028)
See above...

Are you actually suggesting that the parameters can be set AFTER the start of the hypothetical????

Give me the opportunity to do that...and I will have every experiment result in the exact way I predict beforehand.

So are you suggesting that?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I am not saying none of it, nor do I have to establish moral superiority through claims...I think I pointed out, I could be speaking in economy or carrots its all the same regarding systems, the satisfactory measure for a better moral system is given through a better more encompassing algorithm...a system is better because it works better and endures more, and explains more, not because you know for sure in advance which system that is...nonetheless you can pragmatically refer to a Universal system by referring to the natural dominant system at a given time...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

I am not saying none of it, nor do I have to establish moral superiority through claims...I think I pointed out, I could be speaking in economy or carrots its all the same regarding systems, the satisfactory measure for a better moral system is given through a better more encompassing algorithm...a system is better because it works better and endures more, and explains more, not because you know for sure in advance which system that is...nonetheless you can pragmatically refer to a Universal system by referring to the natural dominant system at a given time...

http://able2know.org/topic/208905-24#post-5274028

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Furthermore if one is willingly admitting several degrees of complexity in the structuring of a set of systems including moral systems, the usage of an Absolute or "Universality" as adequate terming, even considering an open infinite set, would just require the biggest possible set at a given time frame, which must exist if any order of grandeur exists, you don't even have to describe it, or particularize its characteristics...

Lets see if you can understand this...your perception, or understanding of which is the dominant system is not relevant for the necessary existence of such system, the reason precisely why you are morally entitled to defend your standing point until your system is destroyed or assimilated for a working better one...

...its not like you dictate a priori which system is better, you have to prove it through natural selection.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

Lets see if you can understand this...your perception, or understanding of which is the dominant system is not relevant for the necessary existence of such system, the reason precisely why you are morally entitled to defend your standing point until your system is destroyed or assimilated for a working better one...

...its not like you dictate a priori which system is better, you have to prove it through natural selection.

That is pretty much what I have been arguing...but once again you seem unwilling to concede that contex requires (I AM willing to substitute “derives from”) that context of the hypothetical relative to the possible variations that can occur match the parameters (which of course have to be set prior to the presuppositions that form the basis for what amounts to a mental experiment)...be valid and verified as valid.

In fact, you are not even willing to concede that the parameters MUST be set before the initiation.

You are addicted to (perhaps a more merciful rendering would be: you seem to have a need for) begging the question in order to avoid this.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Nonsense my point was quite another how does any of that presupposes that no dominant moral system exists if there are measurable degrees of complexity going on all around you ? Dominance is a matter of fact not a matter of knowledge or prediction.

1 Reply

A question for people who believe in Moral Absolutes

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know